Whadda ya think tween these????

[Alan Dye]

Been looking at lenses for the specific reason of shooting indoor hockey in minimal light arena's. I have the chance to pick up a Canon 70-200 f4 IS reasonably. I also have been looking at the Sigma 70-200 2.8.

For the application I need it for, what do you think would be the best mated to a 300D Rebel?

Thanks!

[pcasciola]

I think I'd go with the Sigma, especially since you said minimal light.

Here's a comparison:
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html

[defordphoto]

With minimal light as a major consideration there's no contest. It's either the Sigma or save up for the Canon 2.8. Anytime a big Canon lens has a 2.8 attched to it, the price is tough to digest, but the payoff and output is so, so worth it.

Shooting sports with the 300D is tough enough, even with the hack, so you'd want to make things as simple as possible.

[Alan Dye]

I think I'd go with the Sigma, especially since you said minimal light.

Here's a comparison:
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html


Thanks! Great review. But all of the comparisons are with stationary objects. I'm curious as to how they would preform in a high speed setting like ice hockey??

[pcasciola]

For high speed stuff the Sigma would stop the action better because it would double your shutter speed at f/2.8 compared with the Canon at f/4. I agree with Jim here, either save up and get the Canon 2.8L, or go for the Sigma, unless you don't need f/2.8, but its sounds like you do.

[Alan Dye]

That was my initial thoughts. But isn't the IS equivilent to 2 stops of compensation? Would that make for equal/better apeture?

[pcasciola]

The 70-200 f/4L doesn't have IS. Only the 70-200 f/2.8L IS has that, but that's $1700.

[Alan Dye]

AHHHH, My Bad. Thanks for clearing that up!

[blackviolet]

even if it did have IS, it is designed to stabilise the lens from camera/lens shake. it doesn't 'make up' for 2 stops of light. so the end effect with IS is that it will compensate for low light when handheld (or panning on a tripod with newer IS) so the amount of visible camera shake is roughly equal to that of 2 additional stops.

with hockey, you are shooting action which requires fast shutter speed to 'freeze' the action (and prevent object motion blur). with a faster shutter speed, you need more light - hence the need for a faster lens. 2.8 or faster is generally required. fortunately, in ice hockey (over, say basketball) there is a nice amount of reflected light from the rink so 2.8 is actually quite good.

[DavidEB]

I play, and have two boys who play. Until a month ago I shot with a 70-300mm f4 lens on my DRebel. I would shoot 200 pics a game and keep maybe 20 or 30. After reading Drisley's comments I looked for a lens with larger aperature and got the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It's made a huge difference - I now keep close to 90% of my shots. I love the lens. Also you can consider a monopod - I got a cheap on for $20 and it helps.

Hockey is a game of speed and direction change. To shoot, you need very fast shutter speeds. IS wont help for two reasons -- you get more light by using a slow shutter (skaters will be blurred) and you need to wait 1/2 sec or so for it to stabilize before shooting (puck will be at other end of ice by then).

One other option is to use a prime lens, but I like the zoom. But being able to use f/2 (either 100mm or 135mm) would make shooting hockey even easier.

Good luck

[Brianbar]

I don't understand the big issue with f2.8 or f4, surely it's the shutter speed that matters, so increase the ISO.

Brian

[Belmondo]

I don't understand the big issue with f2.8 or f4, surely it's the shutter speed that matters, so increase the ISO.

Brian

Shooting indoors, he's probably going to have to do that anyway. The f/2.8 just gives hime a bit more range (i.e.the ability to use a faster shutter).

I'd go with the Sigma, too, although I own the Canon, and it's a wonderful lens.

[Anders Östberg]

With "minimal light" a large aperture to gain shutter speed is everything... consider the 135/2 also, a full stop faster and my favourite for icehockey. I've also tried my 70-200/2.8 and it is nowhere near as sharp at f/2.8, and I have a feeling the same goes for the Sigma.

[DocFrankenstein]

Keep in mind that Sigma 70-200 focuses very slowly. (compared to canon)

For me it would be a no brainer. 2.8 L with or without IS.

Cheers

[rg-tom]

Frankenstein have you used the sigma 70-200? I personally havnt but I've heard it is almost as fast as it uses the HSM which is basically USM?

And also people saying "increase the ISO" gets on my tits, why lose image quality? Where I shoot, with F4, I'd need iso 6400 to get 1/400th of a second. last time i checked my 20D didn't have that. without the firmware hack the 300D only goes up to 1600 anyway, so anything more than F2 would be unusable.

[pcasciola]

I don't understand the big issue with f2.8 or f4, surely it's the shutter speed that matters, so increase the ISO.

BrianHe said minimal light. We are cranking up the ISO all the way already. I shoot indoor sports with minimal light, and at ISO 3200, f/4 would only get me about 1/60 tops. Way too slow for action shots. I use an 85/1.8 and am lucky to get 1/250, so the absolute slowest aperture I would consider for low light indoor sports is f/2.8, and even that would be a challenge in some of these gyms.

Doc, I agree the 2.8L is a no brainer over the Sigma 2.8, but there's the matter of the $400+ extra. And with the IS, there goes another $700.

[Anders Östberg]

Agreed, "minimal light" for me is a badly lit icehockey arena or gym, using ISO 1600, f/2 and 1/400 to freeze action. There is no other way than a fast and sharp lens, even with high ISO. f/4 definitely doesn't cut it if you want any kind of decent shutter speed.

[rebel61021]

well for my .02 worth I have the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and used it for couple months I now have the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and shooting in gym's I shoot wrestling and I think the Sigma focuses just as fast as the canon lens does. I shoot from anywehre f2.8 up to about f/5 depending on the gym. The light in the gym makes the decision on which lens I use.

[DocFrankenstein]

Frankenstein have you used the sigma 70-200? I personally havnt but I've heard it is almost as fast as it uses the HSM which is basically USM?
I have it and use it.

70-200 L IS I used very briefly. I don't know why, maybe L has less glass to move, or has a more powerful motor... But the AF speed was significatly higher.

Doc, I agree the 2.8L is a no brainer over the Sigma 2.8, but there's the matter of the $400+ extra. And with the IS, there goes another $700.
If he gets paid "shooting hockey", then it's sure worth it. Plus, the L is noticeably sharper at 2.8... where it's used the most.

I may be wrong though... my L experience was brief.

[pfuller88]

A little off topic on the lens but the hockey is similar. I take a lot of pictures of my kids at hockey rinks. I had a sigma 18-135 and found it took alright pictures with the ISO 3200. I wnated a faster lens at a reasonable price. I did a ton a reseach and bought a 85mm 1.8 USM. What a difference. Obvisouly I am constrained on the prime but with the 8 megapixel picture I can crop very effectively. I also don't mind moving around a little (where possible). With the lens at 1.8 or 2 I can bring the ISO down to 800 and still get fast shutter speed. The pictures are very sharp. The fast lens is great. As a bonus I get a great portrait lens as well.

[Mogwyth]

I have it and use it.

70-200 L IS I used very briefly. I don't know why, maybe L has less glass to move, or has a more powerful motor... But the AF speed was significatly higher.

Spent a day with both of these and the f/4 before getting the Sigma and on the copies I had the Canon's were faster but almost imperceptible so, certainly not the significant.


If he gets paid "shooting hockey", then it's sure worth it. Plus, the L is noticeably sharper at 2.8... where it's used the most.


True but as you say the extra cost may only make the extra sharpness worth it if you are a pro and again I did not find the difference that great.

FWIW I feel that the Sigma is 95% of the L (IS not taken into account) for only 50% of the cost, if money is no object or you are pro get the Canon if not get the Sigma it's a great value second best.

[Alan Dye]

Wow, I leave for a few hours and all this shows up!:D

First off, I do NOT get paid to do this. I started off just takin' pictures of my son while he plays. Then the team president asked if I'd be interested in takin' pix for the team. (As a way to contribute) So I said "Yes".

I really enjoy it, so I figured that I might as well try to get better at it. (within my budget of course). So I've been lookin' for reasonably priced gear. I already had the D-Reb, so I'm tryin' to build off that. I have picked up a Tamron 28-105 f2.8, but I can't always get down on the ice, and it's a little too short to use from up in the stands.

I know the Canon 70-200L would be ideal, But I just don't have the means right now. I've found a few lenses on Ebay that fall in my range. The Sigma is one, and maybe a Canon 200mm. I had the chance to pic up the f4 IS reasonably, but it's passed me by. So now I'm looking at the others.

Here are an example of what I shoot. You're more than welcome to critique them. BTW, These were not shot with the Tamron, but rather a 75-300 f4.5. (don't have any with the Tamron as I have turned them in for the highlight DVD that the team is making)

[Brianbar]

Coming back to my original statement.

I don't understand the big issue with f2.8 or f4, surely it's the shutter speed that matters, so increase the ISO.

Ice hockey is a big thing in Winnipeg Canada, and I have taken many photos of this sport, indoors and outside at night. I have NEVER had a problem regarding minimal light.
This is a very fast game with a small puck, so lighting should never be a concern otherwise it would be a big problem for the players.

Brian

[rg-tom]

Brianbar did you not read the thread? ive already responded to the increase the iso comment.

Frankenstein have you used the sigma 70-200? I personally havnt but I've heard it is almost as fast as it uses the HSM which is basically USM?

And also people saying "increase the ISO" gets on my tits, why lose image quality? Where I shoot, with F4, I'd need iso 6400 to get 1/400th of a second. last time i checked my 20D didn't have that. without the firmware hack the 300D only goes up to 1600 anyway, so anything more than F2 would be unusable.

And what seems like great light to us is quite often crap light for a camera ;) we adjust better.

[pcasciola]

Coming back to my original statement.

I don't understand the big issue with f2.8 or f4, surely it's the shutter speed that matters, so increase the ISO.

Ice hockey is a big thing in Winnipeg Canada, and I have taken many photos of this sport, indoors and outside at night. I have NEVER had a problem regarding minimal light.
This is a very fast game with a small puck, so lighting should never be a concern otherwise it would be a big problem for the players.

BrianBrian, it seems like you are not reading any of the posts at all. f/4 is not enough for minimal light shooting, period. Many of us do this on a regular basis, and as I said before, at maximum ISO of 3200 on my 20D, f/4 would only get me about 1/60 shutter in some of the gyms where I shoot. If you don't understand, then maybe you should go back and read the other posts on this thread. f/4 may be fine for your situation, and that's great, but many of us need faster shutters, and are already cranking up the ISO to the max.

[nosquare2003]

Frankenstein have you used the sigma 70-200? I personally havnt but I've heard it is almost as fast as it uses the HSM which is basically USM?


The autofocus speed of Canon 70-200/2.8L IS is almost instant while you will notice the autofocus of the Sigma 70-200/2.8. For low light and a slower camera body, the Canon f/2.8 lens will be a better choice. (Actually, I do not consider that the autofocus speed of Sigma 70-200/2.8 to be slow.)

Alan Dye, will you also consider prime lenses like Canon EF135/2L? Or can you rent a lens to try yourself first?

[DocFrankenstein]

Ok, so the opinions are different. Almost instant vs. very fast on sigma as someone mentioned earlier.

If you're forced to settle down for sigma... I think you'll survive. ;)

[Alan Dye]

Alan Dye, will you also consider prime lenses like Canon EF135/2L? Or can you rent a lens to try yourself first?


Thanks for the suggestion! I'll look into that lens too! ;)

[Alan Dye]

Well, I made my decision. I sold my Tamron 20-105 F2.8 and went with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO IF HSM. Hopefully it'll be the one.

Once it gets in, I'll give it a go and post a few pics. BTW, I picked it up for $650. So I saved a few $$$ and can invest in things like filters and a gear bag.

Any suggestion on any of those???

Thanks to all who made recommendations!

[pcasciola]

$650 is a pretty good price. Keep us posted, because I'm also leaning toward the Sigma since I can't afford to spring for the Canon 70-200 2.8L or 2.8L IS right now.

Looking forward to seeing some shots with your new Sigma. Good luck with it.